Why is Iranian diplomacy without a plan?
Author: Mohammad Qadeer Mesbah, Regional Affairs Expert, especially for Sangar.
Discussions about the share of Iran in the water of the Hirmand River in Afghanistan, after the water flowing into the aqueducts created on the path of this river in the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran, was reduced and even dried up in some months, brought the reaction of the Iranian authorities to the limit of threats.
These discussions were the focus of attention of regional experts, political parties, and the media, and Iranian and Afghan authors wrote many articles from legal, political, economic, and environmental points of view on the revision of the Hirmand Water Treaty signed in 1351 between the then governments of both countries.
All stated positions are based on their mental tendencies and geographical location. Some even adhere to international law, citing the discussion of territorial waters and common lakes between several countries contained in treaty laws.
I don't want to look at it from that point of view, and I don't want to be limited to a few sentences and a few articles that I think are like legal tinkering on this treaty, and I don't want to waste the reader's time on these discussions.
Today's claim by the Islamic Republic of Iran to its share of the water in the ever-flowing Ghirmand River, which is taking the water from the foothills, springs, and seasonal rains, is considered by some to be the greatest challenge in bilateral relations. This is not true.
In my opinion, the problem of the sharing of Iranian water in the Hirmand River extends throughout the history of our geographical connection, language, culture, and common history. There is nothing special here. It is one of the eternal disputes in the region. Historically and today, the issue of water sharing in Afghanistan, along with other social unresolved problems, has been and is very acute. This problem exists between provinces, even districts, and villages. Every year we are witnessing water conflicts between ordinary peasants. From time to time internal disputes between large farmers, especially during the summer season. These disputes, which sometimes even use weapons and will cause human casualties, happen every year, and their beginning does not have a specific date.
The issue of water sharing between Iran and Afghanistan, which have historically been linked to each other, and there were times when there were no political borders, has always been discussed in macro-regional and social debates throughout history. Hence, these disagreements were resolved by the governments, and for this bilateral agreements were signed and the appointment of an international arbitration court and bilateral commissioners.
In a word, the "Afghan problem" for Iran is not limited to the division of water. The water issue is just the tip of the iceberg that stands out from the ocean of problems between the two countries. The most important problems cited by the internal media of the Islamic Republic are calculated as follows:
- Inclusive government;
- Cultivation and smuggling of narcotic drugs;
- Religious extremism and terrorism;
- Border skirmishes;
- Education;
- Migration;
- Bases of Iranian opposition groups;
- Smuggling of weapons and oil;
- seasonal hostages;
- Water allocation on the river Hirmand.
Any conscientious reader, studying Iranian diplomacy in the light of the above, understands that its attention and sufficiency are only in deceptive and everyday slogans that have only domestic consumption, nothing more.
I believe that if the issue of an inclusive government in Afghanistan was such a serious issue for the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards its eastern neighbor, then it would not consider the Taliban to be the main group in Afghanistan after the capture of Kabul and would not provide them with an Afghan embassy in Tehran. Within the framework of good neighborliness, which is one of the important components of foreign policy, the Islamic Republic, first of all, had to proceed from the interests of the migrating citizens of Afghanistan, millions who fled from the hard life and repressions of the "emirate" of the Taliban to Iran.
In addition, historical, cultural, and ideological commonalities are added to this expectation. At the same time, if the above expectation is ignored, from a political point of view, Iran is one of the Islamic states that are members of the UN. And the leaders of the Taliban group are blacklisted by this organization. In this case, the Afghan embassy should not have been handed over to the Taliban until the fate of an inclusive government is decided. Other countries have done so for human rights, education, women's rights, media, political and civil rights, drug control, and terrorism.
It seems that Iranian government officials, before learning from the experience of four decades of the crisis in Afghanistan, were mostly content with Western phobia, especially American phobia. The fall of the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which Iran considered an American puppet government, and the civil and media freedoms enshrined in the Afghan Constitution, have been a thorn in the side of some Iranians. They thought that such a model is harmful to Iranian citizens and that a modern and civilized Afghanistan is not in Iran's interests.
As soon as the Taliban captured Kabul under the slogan of victory over the forces of NATO and the West, especially the United States, the Iranians became so excited, as if their centuries-old dreams had come true overnight. They considered this victory the victory of Good over Evil and the victory of national forces over the invaders and congratulated each other. Iran was turning its back on political factions with which it had been friends for almost four decades. Iran's reaction has caused despair and hopelessness in these so-called friendly forces.
In my personal opinion, the Iranian authorities are still ill-prepared for the political developments in Afghanistan, and their diplomacy is more like passive and shady diplomacy than active and effective diplomacy with a plan.
Why?
The Iranian authorities use the problem of migrants as political, social and even economic pressure to solve the security problems of their borders. This is the worst way even sounded from several sites at the level of the Islamic Council of Iran. The world will not support such an approach by the Iranians and may not agree with its consequences.
But if the Iranians give priority to such phenomena as drugs, smuggling, extremism and terrorism, which are associated with the security and social health of the world and which are fueled by large smuggling and mafia cartels, Iran will become the world's stronghold in the fight against these phenomena. It also contributes to the achievement of a complex of desires, universal and mutually acceptable interests of the country itself. For this, it is only necessary to introduce long-term diplomatic mechanisms in the regional and global dimensions.